/lit/ - Literature

Bread is literally a pleb-tier food.

>>9365587
Whoever cometh to this bread shall never hunger; and he that believeth on Christ shall never thirst.

Sorry I don't download bread.

>>9365596
this is you

I've tried to get into it. Read some Lewis, read some Chesterton. Read some scripture.

It just doesn't make sense to me.

>>9365606
deb8 me faggot

Lewis is a hack. The only books worth reading on your list are the orthodox ones desu.

>>9365587
I don't know why, but this comment hurts me deeply.

>>9365587
how dare you

bread is awesome

>>9365584
I'm an atheist but I really enjoy fiction that explores religion, whats my fucking problem?

>>9365730
atheism

>>9365609
Because you're a child

>>>/x/

>>9365587

>being too patrish for Christ

Repent, and hear the Word of the Lord. All are welcome before the Altar of Christ.

Reminder that Jesus was a failed prophet.

>You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matt. 5:38-39)

>Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. (Matt. 5:43-48, Luke 6:27-28)

It makes no sense for Jesus to say the above unless he believes that the apocalypse is imminent...

>But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other. Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.“ (Matthew 24: 25-34)

...which he does.

Except the world didn't end, and literally 2,000 years later people are still falling for the ramblings of a lunatic.

>>9365584
>he didn't include "The Case for Christ"

Dropped

>>9365799
heres your (you), friend

i pray that you read more on biblical interpretation

>>9365799
Holy fuck I hate Internet bible scholars.
Go back to The Amazing Atheist you unbelievable retard.

>the world didn't end
False

Back to riddit, child.

>>9365845
>>9365846
>>9365850
>>>/x/

>>9365853
So edgy.

>>9365854
>>>/x/

>>9365846
>>here are literal statements from scripture clearly showing that jesus' beliefs were false
>omg i hate you you dumb

>>9365587
Bread is the foundational food of civilization you colossal faggot.

>>9365853
>>9365799
>>9365609
Maybe reading the bible would be a good starting point, I mean at least to not embarass yourselves in public like this. Not even christian btw.

>>9365866
Actually grains are. Bread is a later invention. Bread was actually thought of as a variation of gruel for a long time afterward too.

>>93659365
simply epic
>>>/x/

Beware of the yeast of the pharisees.

>>9365872
>literally quotes the bible
>"go read the bible faget"

good post

>>9365896
I mean reading it from cover to cover, with some notes helping your obviously childish understanding of it.

>>9365896
/x/ users are illiterate

>>9365904
I did read it cover to cover. Twice. Maybe you should try it too sometime. There's plenty more quotes I can drop about Jesus being a failed prophet.

>>9365885
>blake
>protestant
He's a borderline Gnostic who makes John fucking Milton the hero of one of his later poems.

>>9365912
>failed
Just because you didn't understand what you read doesn't mean He was 'failed'.

>>9365919
All protestants are heretics, so why does it matter anyway?

>>9365921
Really? So you understand what he meant better than the people he physically spoke to and his first and second generation of followers, all of who understood him to mean that the apocalypse was immanent?

The level of denial in christianity - 2,000 years worth of mental gymnastics about why the world hasn't ended yet - is simply mindboggling.

>>9365912
Well then kill yourself. I mean who the fuck can read the bible twice and still try to disprove it by a literal interpretation? Did you do the same with parable?

>>9365928
*imminent

>>9365730
were you raised religiously? maybe you just enjoy the religious themes cause of your upbringing

>>9365928
The apocalypse is imminent, you fucking dope.
>mental gymnastics
ANYBODY WHO ACTUALLY THINKS ABOUT A THING I DONT LIKE IS JUST DOING WEIRD SEXY POSES WITH THEIR HEADS
THOSE SEXY POSES MAKE ME FEEL UNSAFE THEY MAKE MY UNDIES TIGHT
MILKY MOMMY MAKE ME FEEL SAFE MAKE MY UNDIES NOT TIGHT

>>9365931
>it was a metaphor, bro
t. augustine

Because literally pages and pages and page of text exactly tracing the genealogy of people all the way back to Adam was meant to be taken metaphorically, the same pages that all the early christians said were meant to be taken literally.

>>9365939
>THE APOCALYPSE IS IMMINENT
>*2,000 years pass*
>THE APOCALYPSE IS IMMINENT

>"Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place." - Jesus

>>9365951
The generation has not passed.

>>9365951
>the bible is one book
Oh look, a troll.

>>9365954
>it was a metaphor

There we go again.

>“Do not seek a wife. This is what I mean, brothers: the appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away.” (1 Corinthians 7:27,29-31)

I'll translate for you: don't even bother getting married because you're going to die any die now.

>>9365958
It isn't, but more than one gospel opens with a genealogy based on the OT.

I'm starting to think you haven't even read it and your 'faith' comes from /pol/ and artifact-riddled jpgs.

>>9365969
>*to die any day now (via the apocalypse)

>>9365951
???????
genuinely confuse by your hate of any symbolical interpretation. You do know that is it the reccomended way of reading?

>>9365969
>metaphor
No, you're just fucking stupid.

I've read the Bible more times than I can count (because it's long).
I'm not from /pol/, I'm from /a/. Are you going to spew more presumptions now?

>>9365978
>recommended

>>9365984
>Are you going to spew more presumptions now?

You started it.

Kropotkin is the real breadpill

>>9365989
No, it is clear you haven't actually read the Bible, whereas there is no reason to believe I am from /pol/.

Half of my posts on /a/ concern a single series which /pol/ either doesn't know or HATES.

>>9365996
Do you think he keeps a loaf in that beard?

>>9366000
All that's clear is that you refuse to credit me because I come to different conclusions that you do based on our different hermeneutics.

>>9366019
>different conclusions
You: didn't actually read it
Me: has actually read it

>>9366002
I think so.

This thread has been SEIZED by the proletariat. This is now a Peter Kropotkin thread. Read "the conquest of bread" if you havent yet already.

>>9366026
Me: put forth my position with scriptural evidence and reasoning that demonstrates a familiarity with both the NT and OT
You: nothing but shitpost and "no you're wrong"

And you wonder why I think you haven't read it, troll.

The history of human thought recalls the swinging of a pendulum which takes centuries to swing. After a long period of slumber comes a moment of awakening. Then thought frees herself from the chains with which those interested — rulers, lawyers, clerics — have carefully enwound her.
She shatters the chains. She subjects to severe criticism all that has been taught her, and lays bare the emptiness of the religious political, legal, and social prejudices amid which she has vegetated. She starts research in new paths, enriches our knowledge with new discoveries, creates new sciences.
But the inveterate enemies of thought — the government, the lawgiver, and the priest — soon recover from their defeat. By degrees they gather together their scattered forces, and remodel their faith and their code of laws to adapt them to the new needs.
- peter kropotkin

>>9366043
>scriptural evidence
No you haven't, you've posted trash out of context. Abloobloo my Godless soul can't comprehend a sacred text!

If you reason instead of repeating what is taught you; if you analyze the law and strip off those cloudy fictions with which it has been draped in order to conceal its real origin, which is the right of the stronger, and its substance, which has ever been the consecration of all the tyrannies handed down to mankind through its long and bloody history; when you have comprehended this, your contempt for the law will be profound indeed. You will understand that to remain the servant of the written law is to place yourself every day in opposition to the law of conscience, and to make a bargain on the wrong side; and, since this struggle cannot go on forever, you will either silence your conscience and become a scoundrel, or you will break with tradition, and you will work with us for the utter destruction of all this injustice, economic, social and political.

The means of production being the collective work of humanity, the product should be the collective property of the race. Individual appropriation is neither just nor serviceable. All belongs to all. All things are for all men, since all men have need of them, since all men have worked in the measure of their strength to produce them, and since it is not possible to evaluate every one's part in the production of the world's wealth.
All things are for all. Here is an immense stock of tools and implements; here are all those iron slaves which we call machines, which saw and plane, spin and weave for us, unmaking and remaking, working up raw matter to produce the marvels of our time. But nobody has the right to seize a single one of these machines and say, "This is mine; if you want to use it you must pay me a tax on each of your products," any more than the feudal lord of medieval times had the right to say to the peasant, "This hill, this meadow belong to me, and you must pay me a tax on every sheaf of corn you reap, on every rick you build."
All is for all! If the man and the woman bear their fair share of work, they have a right to their fair share of all that is produced by all, and that share is enough to secure them well-being. No more of such vague formulas as "The Right to work," or "To each the whole result of his labour." What we proclaim is:

The Right to Well-Being: Well-Being for All!

As soon as we study animals — not in laboratories and museums only, but in the forest and prairie, in the steppe and in the mountains — we at once perceive that though there is an immense amount of warfare and extermination going on amidst various species, and especially amidst various classes of animals, there is, at the same time, as much, or perhaps even more, of mutual support, mutual aid, and mutual defence amidst animals belonging to the same species or, at least, to the same society. Sociability is as much a law of nature as mutual struggle. Of course it would be extremely difficult to estimate, however roughly, the relative numerical importance of both these series of facts. But if we resort to an indirect test, and ask Nature: "Who are the fittest: those who are continually at war with each other, or those who support one another?" we at once see that those animals which acquire habits of mutual aid are undoubtedly the fittest. They have more chances to survive, and they attain, in their respective classes, the highest development and bodily organization. If the numberless facts which can be brought forward to support this view are taken into account, we may safely say that mutual aid is as much a law of animal life as mutual struggle; but that as a factor of evolution, it most probably has a far greater importance, inasmuch as it favors the development of such habits and characters as insure the maintenance and further development of the species, together with the greatest amount of welfare and enjoyment of life for the individual, with the least waste of energy.
- peter kropotkin

>>9366030
>>9366044
>>9366060
>>9366068
>>9366071

God damn, I hate Commies.

I mean, every now and then it's almost like I forget why I hate them so much and then some autistic anon posts some of their utterly clueless shit and the rage I have for them is immediately kindled.

God damn, I fucking hate Commies.

>>9366048
Just more "you're wrong" with no reasoning as to why it's wrong or counter-examples.

>Abloobloo my Godless soul can't comprehend a sacred text!
>Not even christian btw.

>>9366076
>reasoning
I don't care about secular memes.

>>9366076
you're confusing two people, though. This guy talks with you since
>>9365958
I'm the one who said I wasn't christian and that your understanding of the bible is childish :
>>9365904
>>9365931

The need for a new life becomes apparent. The code of established morality, that which governs the greater number of people in their daily life, no longer seems sufficient. What formerly seemed just is now felt to be a crying injustice. The morality of yesterday is today recognized as revolting immorality. The conflict between new ideas and old traditions flames up in every class of society, in every possible environment, in the very bosom of the family. … Those who long for the triumph of justice, those who would put new ideas into practice, are soon forced to recognize that the realization of their generous, humanitarian and regenerating ideas cannot take place in a society thus constituted; they perceive the necessity of a revolutionary whirlwind which will sweep away all this rottenness, revive sluggish hearts with its breath, and bring to mankind that spirit of devotion, self-denial, and heroism, without which society sinks through degradation and vileness into complete disintegration. [...]
In periods of frenzied haste toward wealth, of feverish speculation and of crisis, of the sudden downfall of great industries and the ephemeral expansion of other branches of production, of scandalous fortunes amassed in a few years and dissipated as quickly, it becomes evident that the economic institutions which control production and exchange are far from giving to society the prosperity which they are supposed to guarantee; they produce precisely the opposite result. … Human society is seen to be splitting more and more into two hostile camps, and at the same time to be subdividing into thousands of small groups waging merciless war against each other. Weary of these wars, weary of the miseries which they cause, society rushes to seek a new organization; it clamors loudly for a complete remodeling of the system of property ownership, of production, of exchange and all economic relations which spring from it.

>>9366085
>your understanding of the bible is childish :
False
Of course you aren't a Christian, that's why you don't understand the Bible

>>9366093

On the contrary. To understand the bible is to reject Christianity.

>>9366077
>I'm not willing to even consider being convinced by other viewpoints but I make threads attempting to convince other people of my viewpoints

And I'm out.

>>9366096
False,
>>9366103
>muh udder bewboince
Humanist meme
I didn't make this thread btw.

>>9366088
Where is this from?

Yes, but no thanks to NEET new-christian /pol/acks like you

>>9365885

>putting Ed Feser, William Lane Craig and other /pol/ meme authors in the same category is the Holy Bible

Jesus Christ, is there any amount of cringe /pol/ christians can't tolerate?

>>9366135
"The spirit of revolt" written by russian zoologist and political theorist Peter Kropotkin in 1880

Kropotkin was one of the major anarchist theorists and a great opponent to Lenin

>>9366071

Marxism is kind of a reverse-engineered Gnosticism. Putting all Givens under grueling scrutiny, at first with Archonic dialectic, until it and the Givens collapse under their own absurdity, and the Subject is then gradually revealed to be the only truth and the only good.

>>9365919

Protestantism is extraverted Gnosticism.

>>9366096
The Bible is a laughable compilation of incoherent, self-contradicting bullshit, by a rabble of bat-shit authors.

The gods of the Old and new Testaments aren't even the fucking same. Jahweh was just another bog-standard Bronze Age patron deity. He even demanded ritual sacrifices FFS. Modern scholars have identified him with Saturn.

LOL @ Chisttards. They can't even draw basic conclusions from the most studied book of all time.

I like the idea of Jesus and I'm sure he was a cool guy and good role model. If only he existed.

Take the Gnosis Pill

>>9366934
Your silly heresy was refuted in the 2nd c. get with the times and take the Irenaeus Pill.

>>9366730

Indeed, even Scripture tells you that Scripture is dangerous.

>>9366088

Post more Kropotkin, guy.

>>9366942
>refuted
"Gnostics bang prostitutes and are literally satan" isn't a refutation. Your church fathers wrote unverifiable hit pieces on the gnostics.

One could almost say they lacked gnosis *tips sacred geometry*

>>9365584
I was a very religious youth. I swallowed the pill with gusto. All through HS I listened to Christian rock exclusively, attended bible camps, and went to church 3 times a week.

Then in preparation to head off to seminary, I read the bible straight through instead of just the new testament book we happened to be doing that season for our bible quiz league, or what was prescribed by my talks with my pastor (he was also my best friend's father, so I was around the guy a lot in and out of church). Prior to this read through, even my non-bible reading time was spent in Christian texts. Mostly with a focus on anti-science or anti-satanism, which if you read either type of text, you quickly realize are the same thing.

After reading the various contradictions between what was written, and what I was told to believe by the church, I started questioning everything. Why were some things constantly cited by the church from the old testament reviled, while other things we given a pass? How could one book be the unerring word of God, but have passages that "Don't apply in our modern world"?

Why was it that the Christian Science books I would read would work so hard to disprove demonstrable facts? Often the books would use the excuse of "This is what Satan wants you to believe" as the answer when the author had no reasonable explanation. Id God created the universe and the rules it operates by, then how could a fallen angel affect physics? None of it made sense.

Slowly, I changed my reading habits. I slowed my church participation, eventually dropping it completely as I started to read up on various theologies.

Over time I gave them all up as bullshit. I eventually decided that I could be a good person through simple empathy,. If I wouldn't like a situation, or I would be made uncomfortable by it, I didn't do it to others, and I would work to help those who were suffering. I found myself being more charitable than I ever was with the church.

These days I would call myself agnostic. I can't prove or disprove any theology. They are based on faith, and arguing with the faithful is fruitless. I still read a ton of theology and philosophy, but I apply what I read to the world through the lens of empathy, and I toss out anything that I don't see as useful to me or my fellow man.

Restricting yourself to any one discipline makes you one dimensional. Gone are the days where i would parrot back the ideas I was taught. Gone are the late night restaurant discussions about religion, where I adamantly opposed any dissent from the framework I was raised in. These days, I realize that no one has the answers. And that's fine. These days I'm content to just let people enjoy whatever does it for them. I might question it. But any discussions are strictly to seek mutual understanding. What is the common ground in various belief systems that allows us to move forward as a species? "Breadpilling" would never answer that question,

>>9367069
>After reading the various contradictions between what was written, and what I was told to believe by the church, I started questioning everything. Why were some things constantly cited by the church from the old testament reviled, while other things we given a pass? How could one book be the unerring word of God, but have passages that "Don't apply in our modern world"?
As an agnostic who tried to give Christianity a fair shot, this is what struck me as well.

This sounds harsh, but Christians are either ignorant or disingenuous when they tell people to read the gospels first and see the rest of the Bible in relation to them. If you read the Bible through, you find that it's 3/4 about the national god of a middle eastern kingdom. A local god called Yahweh who protects or punishes his people depending on how much they respect him. Very little in the Old Testament points to the gospels, if anything it shows how much the gospels are really about Israelite kingship and jewish history. The messiah means "anointed one", after the tradition of Israelite kings being anointed with oil, it's about local iron age royalty. Being king of Israel isn't a metaphor for being executed by whoever happened to rule Israel at the time, it's about ruling Israel yourself!

(but of course, Israel got twisted into a metaphor for followers of Jesus)

In my opinion it's only possible to hold the Christian view if you've pre-decided that the Old Testament is just a prequel to the gospels.

>>9367125
>In my opinion it's only possible to hold the Christian view if you've pre-decided that the Old Testament is just a prequel to the gospels.

And that's what I've found as well. I have a hard time seeing Jesus as anything but another person amassing followers through the use of existing theology. It is far easier to sway the masses if you can appeal to their existing beliefs. Not to say that some of the ideas Jesus is supposed to have taught aren't useful. But I think we need to treat it in the same way we treat any other philosophical work. When it comes down to it, the vast majority of philosophies revolve around knowing yourself, and being cool to each other. Those are the things that are useful in our lifetimes. Any bulllshit about the afterlife is just that. Let's be good to each other because we know how we want to be treated. Doing it because there is some reward attached to it is disingenuous. I hate when people claim that they do what they do because of the Lord. It feels like they are one imaginary friend away from being complete psychopaths.

>>9365584
Move to Jerusalem, otherwise you're not a real Je- I mean Christian. Dumb LARPing faggot.

>>9366934
Knowledge doesn't exist.
>>9367069
There are no contradictions, you were just horribly student and not actually taught how to read the Bible. Good job, heretic.

Lots of the OT doesn't apply to non-Jews. Holy shit, are you still in fucking high school or something?
>empathy
Humanism is disgusting

>>9367125
THE LAWS OF THE JEWS
DO NOT APPLY TO GOYIM
WHY IS THIS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND?

The laws of China do not apply to you in the same way because you aren't Chinese most likely, do not live in China, and will probably never set foot in China.

>>9367224
lol, and here's the canned apologetics response. I wasn't even talking about the torah law.

>>9367220
>>>9367069 (You)
>There are no contradictions, you were just horribly student and not actually taught how to read the Bible. Good job, heretic.

This is poor bait. If one of us has reading comprehension issues here, I can assure you, it is not I. "Taught how to read the bible". Listen to yourself. Your interpretation is so narrow that someone literally has to tell you how to read a book in order to preserve your beliefs.

>>9365866
>civilization
stop eating bread

Wait, is Karamazov a Christian book?

>>9367247
>Think for yourslf
>Literally sounds like he's been programmed to speak by Dawkins

>>9365606
So which is it, "lolwtfcomics.com" or "quickmeme.com"? Getting mixed signals here.

>>9367224
They apply if you're circumcised.

>>9367388
Not per se, but it features orthodox Christianism pretty heavily throught the novel. Specially on the words of Father Zosima, and beautifully so too.

>>9367399
Do you christfags ever retreat to anything but "Hurrrrr Dawkins"?

I wrote a fucking litany above about why I left the church. That was all 24 years, and thousands of books ago, long before I'd even heard of Dawkins.

After leaving the church, I spent time exploring dozens of philosophies. Searching for myself in the words of others. What I came down to is this:

I am a good person.
I don't need a religion to tell me how to be good to myself or my fellow man.
I can take what I read, and apply what is useful to myself and others without attaching anything more than empathy to it.

The systems of belief I tend to relate to the most are Eastern. Most of the Zen/Taoist/Buddhist works focus on self discovery and personal enlightenment. Which I think fits my non-proselytizing nature. No one has the right to interfere in another's journey. Discussion is fine, but when you start threatening damnation, you've got to far. Life is what a person makes of it. There is no grand judge. If you are at peace with what you do, then so be it.

>>9367220
>Knowledge doesn't exist.

Get behind me.

>>9367440
yet another who fell for the new age meme

hope you'll not become another victim of history

>>9367461
You know? When I was in church, preparing to become a minister, "New Age" was a boogieman phrase used by every Christian author. It's hilarious to see someone still using it. You seem to get very hung up on those labels. You demonize "Dawkins" and "New Age" like they are constructs of a conscious and pervasive evil, out to destroy all that is good.

Maybe someday you'll learn that ideas are just ideas. You get to choose what value they have to you. You don't have to avoid entire concepts just because they make you uncomfortable in your beliefs. If you don't read works that make you uncomfortable, then you are doomed to a life of confirmation bias. It's a comfy life, but it's unchallenging, and unfulfilling. Blow you hair back. Read something that makes you think.

>>9367246
>canned response
Yeah, because YOUR QUESTION WAS ANSWERED BY FUCKING PAUL
>>9367247
>anybody i dont like must be le troll
Yes, there is a certain way to read the Bible. With actual context and an introduction to its form and such. It's a complex text that you don't understand.
>>9367407
Oh look, I'm not circumcised.
>>9367440
wow ur so enlighten!!!
I doubt you are anywhere near the age of 24, moreso that anything of note occurred 24 years ago in your 'life'.
You are not a good person.
You do need religion, because you are evil and cannot see that.
Empathy is a humanist nonsense, you are not good. Utilitarian nonsense is the Golden Calf of little children like yourself stuck in a state of perpetual platitudeness.
Buddhism was a proselytizing religion you idiot.
>There is no grand judge
You only think that because you are afraid of the judgement you have done so much to deserve. One temptation, and you have rejected God.
>>9367504
>ideas are just ideas
Not at all.
>Read something that makes you think.
ANYBODY I DISAGREE WITH MUST BE AN IDIOT WHO DOESNT READ BIG SMARTIE BOOKS LIKE ME
Absolute horseshit -- go finish your algebra homework, Timmy.

Absolute Letzter Mensch, you are. Stuck in a spot where one imagines they can see the faults in stains in everybody's clothes, but cannot see the festering wound on the back of your hand.

You've read nothing and heard nothing that hasn't fellated your pseudo-relativist position, and that is why you are so damn upset when we laugh at your self-erection.

"Woe is me!" said the narcissist, recounting how he has been so wronged by those friends and family that tried so hard to save his immortal soul!

>>9367504
>You get to choose what value they have to you
>a life of confirmation bias

how is assuming a priori that there's no objective truth -- and that you alone are the judge of what has value -- any less dogmatic than the alternative?

>>9367674
Because a bunch of philosophers told me!!! I am le enlightened old fag!

>>9367504
>ideas are just like clothes you buy in the mall, you just pick what suits you the best! truth is not at all relevant!
ok, i guess?

>>9367655
since 60% of your rambling crap is directed at me, I'll respond, though at this point, I'm back to wondering why I bother discussing questions of faith with anyone.

>Yes, there is a certain way to read the Bible. With actual context and an introduction to its form and such. It's a complex text that you don't understand.
I was planning a life in ministry. I spent many long hours with my pastor discussing the bible. You argue from assumptions that are clearly not true.

>I doubt you are anywhere near the age of 24, moreso that anything of note occurred 24 years ago in your 'life'.
I'm creeping up on 41. Believe it or don't. I don't really care.

>You are not a good person.
You do need religion, because you are evil and cannot see that.
Empathy is a humanist nonsense, you are not good. Utilitarian nonsense is the Golden Calf of little children like yourself stuck in a state of perpetual platitudeness.
Buddhism was a proselytizing religion you idiot.
>There is no grand judge
You only think that because you are afraid of the judgement you have done so much to deserve. One temptation, and you have rejected God.
This is just the usual parroting of hellfire and brimstone. And appeal from fear is no appeal at all. If I choose to follow a deity because I will burn for eternity if I don't, do I really love my deity, or am I just afraid of a possible negative consequence? I have seen roughly the same amount of evidence for hell as I've seen for God, so this is unlikely to sway me.

>ANYBODY I DISAGREE WITH MUST BE AN IDIOT WHO DOESNT READ BIG SMARTIE BOOKS LIKE ME
Absolute horseshit -- go finish your algebra homework, Timmy.

Absolute Letzter Mensch, you are. Stuck in a spot where one imagines they can see the faults in stains in everybody's clothes, but cannot see the festering wound on the back of your hand.

You've read nothing and heard nothing that hasn't fellated your pseudo-relativist position, and that is why you are so damn upset when we laugh at your self-erection.

"Woe is me!" said the narcissist, recounting how he has been so wronged by those friends and family that tried so hard to save his immortal soul!

Hi /pol/. You seem to have stumbled away from your containment board.

>>9367700
>>9367674
Subjectivists are arrogant.

>>9367674
Because i have freewill. If one has the ability to make choices, one should embrace that ability. Values are shaped by experience. If I were to ignore the values that actual experience has given me, to kowtow to failed prophets 1000-3000 years past, then I can not grow as a person. I would end up making the same mistakes of the past. Hating my fellow man for accidents of birth, and refusing to wear blended fabrics or enjoy a nice bit of shellfish. It's no way to progress as a being or a society.

What is with the up-tic in Christposting these past couple days? Reminds me of 2015

>>9367700
technically I'm saying pick what serves your fellow man best. Less like clothes, and more like not serving lobster at a banquet if you know several of your friends have shellfish allergies. When I make a decision that will impact others, I think about what impact that will have on them. My basic philosophy,. and the one of most texts I've found to be worth a shit can be summed up with one simple phrase. "Don't be a dick."

That means that any book that prescribes I stone my brother for working on the sabbath probably doesn't carry a lot of weight with me anymore. As that would be the very definition of a dick move.

>>9367755
temporarily emptry contrarianism, as with e.g. the spookbuster.

>>9367751
>>9367760
both examples of shallow utilitarianism

>I can not grow as a person. I would end up making the same mistakes of the past.
to define "mistakes of the past" you're already using value judgments from somewhere. you derive these from...
a) personal judgment
b) collective opinion
c) personal revelation
d) ???

>Hating my fellow man for accidents of birth
>stone my brother for working on the sabbath
no one is advocating these things, strawman

>>9367755
id say about 50% is /pol/ style white supremacy disguised as interest in christianity

>>9367751
>If one has the ability to make choices, one should embrace that ability
also, this requires more justification...

(the following be the Christfag argument to the contrary, btw)
perhaps the ultimate use of free will is to resign it to a higher one (as did Jesus) -- and anything short of this is cheating yourself of the true potential richness of human existence

>>9367069
Sounds like you were raised with an incorrect view of Christianity. Try Augustine.

>>9367785
I said in my post that I was using my own experiences. My ability to empathize based on how I felt in my experiences is where I derive my values from. This is typical for anyone.

The very fact that no one is advocating those things, is why I have stated previously that I found the bible to be contradictory, as those are in fact things advocated in the bible.

>>9367830
If the very book that lays down the tenants of the belief system is what caused me to lose faith, why do you think yet another interpretation of it is going to sway me?

If a thing has to be justified after the fact, perhaps it wasn't very good to begin with.

And that's my main problem with religion. Everyone struggles to find some way to adapt their beliefs to the modern day. All it does is fragment the religion further. So now, despite having one "Holy book" that everyone is supposed to live by there are literally thousands of different branches arguing over what interpretation to follow.

The same thing happens in every religion. If there is an all powerful being that demands fealty, then it should at least explain how we are supposed to follow it, and if we are doing it wrong, should have the decency to tell us. So either God doesn't give a shit about who is right, or doesn't exist.

>>9367832
again, this is a self-referential regression: namely, based on your own experiences, you've decided that you can judge which of your experiences are valid and valuable. see the problem?

as for how to understand the bible, try reading the church fathers (Athanasius, Ignatius, some of Augustine, etc.) -- they're way smarter than modern christfags and they had to deal with more intelligent debates against the top greek philosophers of their times, instead of against mainstream secular meme producers

i say all of this as an agnostic, btw. on a pragmatic level, i basically agree with you, but i also realize from reading a lot more about religion lately that my younger self dismissed christianity (and theism in general) on insufficient grounds related to modern forms of religion that don't necessarily reflect the truths inherent in these traditions

>>9367796
and the counter to the Christfag would be, "And perhaps it's not." Nothing I say is going to sway a person who is adamant that faith is the only argument they need.

>>9367860
Even in the 4th century Augustine had a very pro science view. He stated that Christians should not hold fast to a literal interpretation of early events in the Bible. He also speaks about the different standards and rules given to different time periods and why they make sense. The fact that you bring these up means you have something to gain from secondary Christian literature.

>>9367860
alternatively: the bible says nowhere within what the bible is or that it has ultimate say -- its books are assembled according to tradition, and the idea that the bible is the foundation of christianity is solely protestant (and thus quite recent) -- liturgical christians will say it's christ and the church at the foundation, then the bible as a record of these two things

i'd encourage you to look more into the history of christianity, esp. eastern orthodoxy and catholicism. sure, there's an annoying amount of fragmentation, but there's that anywhere there are humans.

>If there is an all powerful being that demands fealty
as to this last point, this is again an already jaded portrayal of christianity (and theism more broadly). hell is not the point of christianity (see again the early church fathers on this point); full realization of human potential is. and not in a modern pragmatic sense as in mindfulness -- a real ontologically distinct claim about the fundamental nature of humans and their relationship to the universe. to choose or not to choose is part of that. as Larry Wall said, God is a postmodernist: he'll let you choose whichever story you like

>>9365609
You don't have Faith yet. It should come to you eventually.

>>9367870
that's not a counter, that goes right along with the christfag claim. despite what bible-thumper, hellfire-and-brimstone fags would say, christianity perhaps even more than secularism values the free will of the individual to choose, and fear tactics have no place in orienting people to accepting divine love

a choice made under thread of violence is no choice

>>9367867
I see what you are driving at, but as the same time, i am only responsible for myself. Aren't all choices more or less a matter of self-interest and collective reasoning? I simply want what is best for me and the people around me. So I don't do shit that negatively impacts people. I like my car stereo, so I don't steal car stereos, as I would hate to lose mine. I know there is a negative stigma to urinating as I walk down the sidewalk on a Friday night, so, since I don't want ostracized or incarcerated, I don't do that, despite the fact that taking a leak right then would be just fucking fantastic. I think that unless you are a sociopath, values reached by observation are perfectly fine.

>>9365587
>>9365628
>>9365866
>>9365877
>>9367351
fitlit really changed this board didn't it?

>>9367931
oh no wrong one

>>9367895
Again, at a practical level I agree. But that's an moralistic/political standpoint, not a theological one. I think we too often conflate the two.

If God just wanted a bunch of slaves to moral codes, he'd have given us Judaism or Islam. (kek)

>>9367881
>>9367891
Okay, fair enough. Perhaps most of my views of Christianity are tied up in the midwestern US view of it that I know. Church is a business in the US. Here
a hard sell through fire and brimstone is as valid as peace and love as long as it gets you into the church and tithing your income. >>9367655 is a typical example of Christianity in the US, and if it is not the intent of Christianity to produce this type of person, then the church needs overhauled from the ground up.

I will add some secondary Christian writings to my reading list, but I don't see myself changing from my current agnostic state. I just see no more evidence for Abrahamic God than I do for Zeus or Titan. I don't believe that we need religion to dictate ethical behavior. Any gains made from the teachings seem to be lost every time someone needs an excuse to divide people against each other.

>>9365587
That's literally the fucking point of this, though.

>>9367960
Some recs:

St Maximus the Confessor
http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/fathers/maximus.asp

Gregory the Theologian
http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/20_30_0329-0390-_Gregorius_Nazianzenus,_Sanctus.html

anything by John Chrysostom

On the Incarnation (Athanasius)
http://www.svspress.com/on-the-incarnation-saint-athanasius-english-with-an-introduction-by-c-s-lewis/

more generally, I've found studying mysticism in all major traditions highly rewarding

>>9368063

saved. thanks.

>>9368063

I've heard that Maximums, Chrysostom and Nazianzus are beautiful in Greek. I wish I knew it to read them in their original language.

>>9367946
>If God just wanted a bunch of slaves to moral codes, he'd have given us Judaism or Islam. (kek)
But God did give us pre-1st century judaism, he obviously thought there was some purpose to all those laws.

I haven't heard a good explanation for them to be honest, aside from "their hearts were hard, so I made them jump through a load of hoops to teach them a lesson" I don't understand how the mosaic laws make any sense.

>>9368211
Most of the mosaic laws were meant to prevent Jews from participating in pagan rituals. Jesus saying that the hearts of the Jews were hard wasn't in reference to these commands, but in reference to Moses' allowance of divorce, which he then says is adultery.

It is especially in the domain of ethics that the dominating importance of the mutual-aid principle appears in full. That mutual aid is the real foundation of our ethical conceptions seems evident enough. But whatever the opinions as to the first origin of the mutual-aid feeling or instinct may be whether a biological or a supernatural cause is ascribed to it — we must trace its existence as far back as to the lowest stages of the animal world; and from these stages we can follow its uninterrupted evolution, in opposition to a number of contrary agencies, through all degrees of human development, up to the present times. Even the new religions which were born from time to time — always at epochs when the mutual-aid principle was falling into decay in the theocracies and despotic States of the East, or at the decline of the Roman Empire — even the new religions have only reaffirmed that same principle. They found their first supporters among the humble, in the lowest, downtrodden layers of society, where the mutual-aid principle is the necessary foundation of every-day life; and the new forms of union which were introduced in the earliest Buddhist and Christian communities, in the Moravian brotherhoods and so on, took the character of a return to the best aspects of mutual aid in early tribal life.
Each time, however, that an attempt to return to this old principle was made, its fundamental idea itself was widened. From the clan it was extended to the stem, to the federation of stems, to the nation, and finally — in ideal, at least — to the whole of mankind.

different conception of society, very different from that which now prevails, is in process of formation. Under the name of Anarchy, a new interpretation of the past and present life of society arises, giving at the same time a forecast as regards its future, both conceived in the same spirit as the above-mentioned interpretation in natural sciences. Anarchy, therefore, appears as a constituent part of the new philosophy, and that is why Anarchists come in contact, on so many points, with the greatest thinkers and poets of the present day.
In fact, it is certain that in proportion as the human mind frees itself from ideas inculcated by minorities of priests, military chiefs and judges, all striving to establish their domination, and of scientists paid to perpetuate it, a conception of society arises, in which conception there is no longer room for those dominating minorities. A society entering into possession of the social capital accumulated by the labor of preceding generations, organizing itself so as to make use of this capital in the interests of all, and constituting itself without reconstituting the power of the ruling minorities. It comprises in its midst an infinite variety of capacities, temperaments and individual energies: it excludes none. It even calls for struggles and contentions; because we know that periods of contests, so long as they were freely fought out, without the weight of constituted authority being thrown on the one side of the balance, were periods when human genius took its mightiest flight and achieved the greatest aims. Acknowledging, as a fact, the equal rights of all its members to the treasures accumulated in the past, it no longer recognizes a division between exploited and exploiters, governed and governors, dominated and dominators, and it seeks to establish a certain harmonious compatibility in its midst — not by subjecting all its members to an authority that is fictitiously supposed to represent society, not by trying to establish uniformity, but by urging all men to develop free initiative, free action, free association.
It seeks the most complete development of individuality combined with the highest development of voluntary association in all its aspects, in all possible degrees, for all imaginable aims; ever changing, ever modified associations which carry in themselves the elements of their durability and constantly assume new forms, which answer best to the multiple aspirations of all.

>>9368336
Fair enough. Yeah, I get the idolatry part, but so much of it seems like cultural baggage. Like ritual cleanliness rules about menstruating women, or what to do if your donkey wanders into someone else's land, really specific stuff that makes me think it's more an artifact of ancient Israelite culture than something from God.

>>9368365
yeah, this definitely rings true if you've studied other near eastern religions of the time -- the mesopotamians were huge on cleanliness and all sorts of highly coordinated ritual. also see the laws of hammurabi for comparison of legal codes... that kind of obsessive detail is pretty typical for the region.

does that mean it didn't come from god? who knows, but it seems rather misleading to try to tease out the elements of human history that are divinely ordained from those that aren't. as with certain early christians speaking of the greek philosophers*, it might be more accurate to say that the incarnation of christ reclaims all the great parts of history, such that socrates and plato are in fact christian philosophers (and by extension the ancient mesopotamian laws are in fact christian) inasmuch as they reflect the truth as revealed by christ.

just passing along some thoughts. not convinced i have an opinion on the matter personally, but it's all quite interesting to think about.

*i think this was origen, but i'm not positive and am too lazy to look up a source

>>9365587
Have you ever heard of butter you filthy Jew swine?

>>9368587
>does that mean it didn't come from god? who knows, but it seems rather misleading to try to tease out the elements of human history that are divinely ordained from those that aren't.
That's kind of my issue though. I think you have to already accept that the Old Testament God is real to make sense of why these common middle eastern cultural practices are in the Bible.

Circumcision for example, was a common way to initiate someone into a select group, like a priesthood. The ancient Israelites just extended it to their whole people, because they saw their society as special. Why was God copying common rituals of the day?

I've come to think that the best arguments for Christianity are actually arguments for a more absract kind of theism, or even deism. For me, scripture really trips up the religion itself.

>>9370947
The whole reason Scripture is important is that it's meant, at some level, to be history. You're supposed to believe that everything in the Bible actually happened, or that something close enough to it actually happened. It's not meant to be an argument in favor of Judaism or Christianity, it's meant to record history, and history itself--the purported true events the Bible claims to record--argues in favor of Christianity.

Obviously Scripture has other meanings, but its historical capacity shouldn't be forgotten.

>>9370963

Jesus was against History in almost every way.

>>9370963
In what sense do you believe that the events of the Bible happened? How can you believe that it happened in an objective sense when the body of historical evidence weighs against it?

I don't mean to insult. I'm wondering how I would ever overcome this should I choose to believe.

>>9366730
>>9366096
>>9366085

all me

>>9371000

When you say "the events in the bible" I have no idea what you're referring to. For all I know you could be talking about the book story of Job or Jonah, stories that are held to be mythopoeic rather than literal accounts of history so of course there would be no historical evidence for them. Are you claiming that the "historical evidence weighs against" the Exodus, David, Solomon, or Jesus? You have to be more specific. The bible is a library. It's doesn't follow that because some books in a library are fiction the entire library is fiction.

>>9365584
>Get washed in the blood of the lamb


I don't know about that, sounds pretty pagan desu.

>>9365885
Please remove the Protestant section of this image macro.

Thank you.

>>9365809
>The Case for Christ"

The man was just a journo With more style than academic or philosophical rigor ie a Hitchens brother

>>9371221
How do you choose which parts are to be read "mythopoetically" and which parts aren't? Do you just wait for the Vatican veridict? An corrupt institution from its beginnings. How do you choose which moral precepts are to be held? If you say New Testament > Old Testament, do you accept that women shouldn't be allowed to teach men? Do you accept slavery as a regular activity under certain humane guidelines?

>>9371256

How do we tell which modern books are fiction or non fiction? We look at the authors, the literary conventions employed, the intended audience, the language, and so on. It's the same deal with the bible.

Additionally we're not limited to saying that every story in the bible is either literal history or poetic fictions. They could instead be nonliteral accounts of actual historical events. Think about how a parent might explain to his child that babies "come from a seed daddies give to mommy's that grow inside the mommy's tummy." That's a true explanation, but it shouldn't be taken literally since it was accommodated for a child's level of understanding. Likewise, the stories in genesis are true but consist of nonliteral language that comes down (or condescends) to the level of understanding found in the audience that first heard these stories.

In some cases it doesn't even matter if they're literal history. The story of Job teaches patience and the story of Jonah teaches obedience, but a fictional story of Jesus dying and coming back to glorious, immortal life would not teach people anything. The nonexistence of Job or Jonah doesn't make these stories any less valuable, but if Christ did not rise then there's no point in being a Christian.

No for the second part of your post, I don't think slavery is intrinsically evil. By this I mean there are certain circumstances and times and places where a specific form of slavery could be morally acceptable. The sort of chattel slavery that we're all familiar with would never be acceptable. The form of slavery that the Jews practiced was more akin to prison or community service than anything else where they were freed after 7 years. With the way their society functioned it wasn't uncommon for slaves to choose continued slavery over freedom after the 7 years.

The reason we follow some rules in the OT and don't follow others is very simple, it's because many of them are context sensitive (is that the right word?) meaning they were instituted for a specific time, a specific place, and for a specific purpose. In the kingdom or temple it wasn't okay for women to teach men, but the kingdom and temple no longer exist so we don't have to follow the rules that apply to those specific places and times.

>>9371273
What does the story about the Amalekites teach?
What do the repeated stories about condemning whole populations for the "sins" of some members?
Were the kids of Sodom and Gomorrah responsible for the "wickedness" of the adults? Were the children of the Canaanites?
What does this teach? Doesn't this entail that populations can be judged as a whole?
Slavery was used against prisoners of war, is that ok? It must be said that there were two kinds of slavery back then, voluntary and otherwise; how is not voluntary slavery ok?

>Context
So, as a woman of that time, I'd be basically screwed. No chance of rising to the aspirations I might have. I must simply accept that these is how things are and not even God has a solution for me? Must I accept I am forlorn because I was born in the wrong time and God can't do anything about it because of context? Same goes for a prisoner of war slave. Same goes for the women that jews were allowed to take home after a war. (What do those stories teach?). God's will bends under context. Or was it the God's will that women should be shunned for centuries until secular society applied enough pressure? When is it ok for you that secular society values overrun Bible values?

Context means, in this case, the collective set of values of certain communities. When you take it into account prior to Christianity, that is to say context while the gospels are happening, it is comprised of the values championed by judaism (which come from the same god), other religions, and secular society. Why would God have any regard for those? And for the ones from Judaism, why would you ascribe it to context if the same God mandated those values?


Not saying Christianity didn't improve things in that time (some). But why is Context more important than God's ruling? Why does God's ruling appear to bend under context sometimes and sometimes don't?

>>9371273
>>9371256

>No for the second part of your post, I don't think slavery is intrinsically evil. By this I mean there are certain circumstances and times and places where a specific form of slavery could be morally acceptable. The sort of chattel slavery that we're all familiar with would never be acceptable. The form of slavery that the Jews practiced was more akin to prison or community service than anything else where they were freed after 7 years. With the way their society functioned it wasn't uncommon for slaves to choose continued slavery over freedom after the 7 years.

It should be noted that we actually practice a very similar form of slavery that the Jews did to this day. It's called th justice system. I somebody steals from you they lose their freedom for a set time.

>>9371306

I don't have the time or will to respond to every objection you have but I will try to explain the historical context behind the prohibition of women teaching in the temple. A common theme you'll notice while reading the Torah is that the Jews have a very hard time staying faithful to God. They were constantly being tempted by certain pagan religions that were spread through the women, either from pagan priestesses or through marriage. This is also the reason why Jews were forbidden to marry pagan girls. It was just something that had to be done at that point in salvation history.

Even looking at modern society you can sort of see the sense in it. Children tend to follow the religion of the mother who spends the most time with the children. The Jews were a very small and weak tribe so their survival was paramount.

>>9371306
>What does the story about the Amalekites teach?
>What do the repeated stories about condemning whole populations for the "sins" of some members?
>Were the kids of Sodom and Gomorrah responsible for the "wickedness" of the adults? Were the children of the Canaanites?
>What does this teach? Doesn't this entail that populations can be judged as a whole?
>Slavery was used against prisoners of war, is that ok? It must be said that there were two kinds of slavery back then, voluntary and otherwise; how is not voluntary slavery ok?

When you shoot out objections like this how do you realistically expect people to respond? I'm not interested in responding with snappy one-liners that don't help anyone and I would have to write on essay for each one in order to give you a proper answer. When you shotgun them out like this you're effectively killing the conversation, because who in their right mind would take the time to do that for somebody that's probably not interested in the answers?

>>9371339
>Context means, in this case, the collective set of values of certain communities. When you take it into account prior to Christianity, that is to say context while the gospels are happening, it is comprised of the values championed by judaism (which come from the same god), other religions, and secular society. Why would God have any regard for those? And for the ones from Judaism, why would you ascribe it to context if the same God mandated those values?

This stands.

Also, some of that "context" was way backed off by the NT. The teachings of Jesus were controversial because they clashed with context. Why couldn't that extend to equality of genders? Didn't God forsee that it would fucking hurt the female gender for centuries?

At least reply to one of my concerns properly. Why post with claims of truth when you don't have the time or will to defend them? It renders the discussion vacuous.

>>9371367
All of those questions are ramifications of the same core question. What do OT stories really teach?

>>9371380

It's a nonsense question. You're effectively asking "what does the library teach?" It depends.

>>9371375

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Backing off context and gender equality... what?

>>9371367

When I was an atheist I used to do this when arguing with theists online. Then when they inevitably stopped responding I chalked that up as a victory. I was a very cringy atheist.

>>9371392
OK then, one question, what do stories about genocide teach?

And of course the teachings of Jesus went against context in a lot of ways, overrun a lot of old values. Then, why didnt he go against context about the rights of women (can't teach men, for instance)?

It's not my fault that the argument has so many holes as to call for a barrage of questions to be asked.

>>9371415
>>9371392
Sorry, more specifically, what does the genocide of the Amalekites teach?

>>9371415

I don't think the account of genocide in the bible are stories that are meant to teach anything. You could gleam from these accounts that these people did things deserving of genocide, like in the case of the Amalekites where they practices ritual child sacrifice. It's also not clear from these texts that actual genocide as we know it occurred, it could be epic narration like how we might say a baseball team "destroyed" another. Just because it's in the bible, doesn't mean it's a moral teaching.

When you say "Jesus went against context" I have no idea what that means. I thought I made that clear in my previous post. Are you saying that Jesus ushered in a new covenant that changed the rules of the game? Well yes. That's the point.

>>9371428
If they don't teach anything and are not historical, why be there? You have no basis to say they don't teach anything, they could be interpreted in such a way with the same validity people interpret the Job story.

Yes, Jesus changed the rules of the game, why not change them so women are not shunned, then? Instead of doing so, the NT encourages the diminished role of women in society.

>>>9371415
>You could gleam from these accounts that these people did things deserving of genocide, like in the case of the Amalekites where they practices ritual child sacrifice.

If you do this, then you must also take that punishing a whole population for the sins of some is adequate.

>>9371461

The primary purpose of the historical books in the OT is to record the history of the Jews. I don't know why this is a problem.

I disagree with your premise that women were every shunned. During the kingdom the second most powerful position was the queen mother, and throughout the OT there multiple cases of women being revered. I also disagree with the idea that the NT encourages any sort of discrimination against women. I'm not going to argue it because I'm not interested in feminist shit.

>>9370963
Well that's why I'm interested in the Bible, it's an amazing piece of history. Just ordered a bunch of different translations and supplemental stuff because I find it so interesting.

But to accept it as inspired scripture is a step too far for me. The content includes a lot of things that don't match up with what churches say it is. Such as the cultural artifacts and historical errors which makes me very suspicious of divine explanations. I'm open to being wrong but faith can't explain away the problems.

>>9371495

If you've got the money those individual OT commentary books by Scott Hahn are excellent.

>>9371507
>Catholic lay theologian and apologist
That's making me wary of potential bias to be honest.

I've already got the NABRE which includes annotations from Catholic scholars. I'll also get the Oxford Annotated Bible when I've got the cash (and space) for it though.

>>9365777
Kek

>>9365587
Man does not live by bread alone, anon

>>9371480
>The primary purpose of the historical books in the OT is to record the history of the Jews. I don't know why this is a problem.

>It's also not clear from these texts that actual genocide as we know it occurred, it could be epic narration like how we might say a baseball team "destroyed" another.

You can take it either way, but the fact of the matter is that the OT says that God mandated the destruction of a population. Even if you take the "it's just an epic narration", it still conveys the punishment of every single person of said population for the sins of a few. If this was a magnification by the writer then the writer intended to mean that. If that implication must be set aside because it WAS the magnification of a writer, then how do you tell apart the stuff actually inspired by God?

>I disagree with your premise that women were every shunned. During the kingdom the second most powerful position was the queen mother, and throughout the OT there multiple cases of women being revered. I also disagree with the idea that the NT encourages any sort of discrimination against women. I'm not going to argue it because I'm not interested in feminist shit.

This is what the NT say about women. How you can say it's not discriminatory is beyond me:

“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.”
Colossians 3:18

“But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the HEAD OF EVERY WOMAN IS HER HUSBAND, and the head of Christ is God…. any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head …For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair …For a man ought not to cover his head; since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.)” 1 Corinthians 11:2-10

“Wives, be submissive to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in EVERYTHING to their husbands.” Ephesians 5:21-24

“…the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.” 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

“….and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be sensible, chaste, domestic, kind, and submissive to their husbands, that the word of God may not be discredited…. Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect…” Titus 2:4-9

And so on.

>>9371528

How do you know every person of a population was punished? God ordered the "total destruction" of the Amalekites but later in the text it's clear that Saul spared at least some of them because Samuel demanded to know why Agag and the animals had been spared.

>>9371554
The story about Samuel and Agag explicitly condemns Saul for not killing Agag or the animals. Samuel, a prophet in direction communication with God, rebukes Saul and hacks Agag to pieces with a sword. The moral is clearly that every Amalekite and their animals SHOULD have been slain, and Saul was wrong for not doing so.

>>9371554
Because of the verse immediatly following the one you praraphrase:

1 Samuel 15:9
"But Saul and the army spared Agag and the best of the sheep and cattle, the fat calves and lambs--everything that was good. These they were unwilling to destroy completely, but everything that was despised and weak they totally destroyed."

A few verses later it is known that God is not pleased with Saul's doing.

>>9371568
immediately*

>>9371563

Well you're going to have the make up your mind. Were the Amelekites destroyed and every person was punished for the sins of a few or did no total
genocide actually occur?

>>9371575
Not same Anon.
See >>9371568

So the king and the sheep weren't punished? That's your out?

And even so, God was not pleased with Saul's doing because He mandated the destruction of ALL.

>>9371584
had mandated*

>>9365584
>KJV

Literally 400 years old and incredibly inaccurate.

>>9371528

There you go shotgunning objections again. I'll address the ones specifically attributed to Paul.

>1 Cor. 11:3, 8-9
>1 Cor. 14:34-35
>1 Tim. 2:11

How should we understand scripture passages that seem to conflict with our belief that men and women should be treated equally? Let's address the first passage, which NT professor Robert Gagnon explained in this way:

Paul is careful to qualify his argument for male headship with the point that neither male nor female exists without the other and that men are born from women (1 Cor 11:11-12) . . . Elsewhere in his letters Paul undermines conventional, subordinate roles for women. In Romans 16, for instance, he mentions numerous female coworkers. In 1 Cor 7:3-4 he insists on the mutuality of conjugal rights. Finally, he pronounces that in the community of the baptized there is "neither male and female (Gal 3:28)

Paul acknowledges the equal value of all the members of the body of Christ, but he does not consider each member to be the same as every other member. He recognized that the different parts of the body each possessed different gifts, and so each part served the whole body in a unique way (1 Cor 12:14-31). Paul also recognized the commonsense truth that men and women are different. As a result, he taught that each sex has a particular role to play in the church, but this did not mean that one sex was inherently better than the other.

A critic might appeal to 1 Peter 3:7 as proof that the bible does say men are better than women. The Passage says, "Husbands, live considerably with your wives, bestowing honor on the woman as the weaker sex.: But according to the NT scholar Daniel Keating,

Given the overall context of the letter, by weaker he probably means weaker in physical strength, and therefore subject to intimidation and abuse by husbands, and also weaker in social standing and influence in society, and so in need of being established and honored by husbands. In these ways wives were vulnerable, and so Peter counsels husbands to show special honor to them.

>>9371584

I'm asking for a clarification. The objection that God punished innocent people during the "total destruction" doesn't make any sense if total destruction didn't occur.

>>9371614
It does, when by not total destruction you mean everyone but the king and the sheep.

>>9371611
This act of hermeneutic acrobatics does not save you from the explicit depiction of one sex submissive to the other.

>>9365584
>Have you taken the breadpill yet mateys?
Hi 8-chan

>>9371614
Different anon here

The narrative of events clearly has God commanding the total destruction of the Amalekites, all but the king and some valuable animals are killed. God is angry because his punishment on the Amalekites was meant to be total destruction. Samuel finishes the job by killing the Amelkite king himself.

Literally everything in 1 Samuel 15 indicates the punishment of the Amalekites was total destruction. The story goes out of its way to say that Saul was wrong to spare even one Amalekite, and Samuel carries out the ultimate wish of God. What your objection to this hinges on is the fate of the animals, whose fate isn't mentioned. Considering their sparing is treated the same as that of Agag it's doubtful we're meant to think they were spared.

In any case, trying to make a moral defense of destroying a whole nation by saying some of their animals might have been spared is a bit weird.

1 Sam. 15:2-3

>Thus says the Lord of hosts, “I will punish the Amalekites for what they did in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.”’

1 Sam. 15:10-11

>The word of the Lord came to Samuel: ‘I regret that I made Saul king, for he has turned back from following me, and has not carried out my commands.’ Samuel was angry; and he cried out to the Lord all night.

1 Sam. 15:32-33

>Then Samuel said, ‘Bring Agag king of the Amalekites here to me.’ And Agag came to him haltingly. Agag said, ‘Surely this is the bitterness of death.’ But Samuel said,
>‘As your sword has made women childless,
>so your mother shall be childless among women.’
>And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the Lord in Gilgal.

>>9371528
>>9371611

What about 1 Cor 14:34-35, where Paul says that women should be kept quiet in church? Doesn't that imply that he thought less of women? The problem with this conclusion is that Paul never absolutely forbids women from speaking in church. In fact, he describes quite the opposite. In 1 Cor 11:4-5, he says, "Any man who prays or prophecies with his head covered dishonors his head, but any women who prays or prophecies with her head unveiled dishonors her head--it is the same as if her head were shaven." One of the differences between praying any prophesying involves speaking out loud what God has internally revealed to the person.

It turns out women were allowed to speak in church just as men were allowed to speak. But just as the average man in the pew cannot give the homily at mass, women may not give similar instruction because they do not have clerical authority. It is only the priest or the bishop who can give such instruction, or have "authority over man."

Paul may have been addressing a pastoral issue in Corinth that involved certain women openly questioning teachings they were receiving in church. Paul advised these women to save their questions for their own homes. Since the first Christian services were held in believer's home, it was tempting for those gathered to treat the occasion with an inappropriate sense of informality. One must assume that he singles these women out for comment because he has heard that some of them were notable violators of these principles. Throughout the chapter Paul is correcting abuses, and words must be read in that context.

Now for Ephesians 5:22-24

What does Paul mean when he says that wives should be "subject to" their husbands or that a husband is "head" of a woman? Pope John Paul II explained it this way"

The author knows that this way of speaking, so profoundly rooted in the customs and religious tradition of the time, is to be understood and carried out in a new way: as a "mutual subjection out of the reverence for Christ."(Eph. 5:21) This is especially true because the husband is called the "head" of the wife as Christ is the head of the church; he is so in order to give "himself up for her" (Eph. 5:25) and giving himself up for her means giving up even his own life. However, whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church the subjection is only on the part of the Church, in the relationship between husband and wife in the "subjection" is not one-sided but mutual.

>>9371655

I think you misunderstand my intentions because I'm not trying to justify it by saying it didn't happen. In fact I think the genocide was completely justified when you consider the long history of Jews and Amelekites, it needs no defense. We often indict people who unethically create or destroy human life as "playing God." We recognize they don't have the authority to act toward human life in the same way God does. But certainly God has the authority to "play himself."

It's stupid to just reduce the issue "killing bad durr."

>>9371656
If it was meant that way, why single out women then?

By the pope's logic, Jesus has the same relationship to mean, as men have to women. "The head of" means what then? The pope's interpretation of "man is the head of women" is mutually submissive, under which basis?

>>9371670
Thanks for latching onto a single sentence of what I said. I'm a different anon, my point isn't whether it's good or bad, it's that you were factually wrong in your reading of 1 Samuel 15.

>>9371670
Do you think it's adequate to punish the children too in such situations?

>>9371673

I wonder if you just skimmed over the post.

>>9371676

If anyone could pass judgement on children it would be God.

>>9371674

I wasn't taking a position on whether it happened or not. I was asking for a clarification on what the person I was talking to thought.

>>9371679
Where does it say the relationship between men and women is not one sided but mutual?

>>9371685
No offense but you were being facetious. Total destruction is obviously mandated and occurs, you were trying to trip someone up by nitpicking.

cf. >>9371614
>The objection that God punished innocent people during the "total destruction" doesn't make any sense if total destruction didn't occur.

>>9371687

Eph. 5:25. It was included right after the statement for a reason.

>>9371683
You said the genocide was completely justified, do you base this in "God has the right" or in the prior relationship between Amalekites and Jews as you said in your previous post? What you said in your previous post entails that you hold the position that children may be punished because of what part of the population in which they live has done in the past.

>>9371695
>>9371687

sorry, 5:21

>>9371696

It's not an either or thing. the Amalekites deserved it and God has authority over human life. Not just some life, but all human life.

>>9371655

How do you explain chapter 27 where it records David still having to fight the Amalekites? Samuel 1 even records David having an Amalekite executed because he took credit for killing Saul. Clearly they weren't totally destroyed.

>>9371695


You said this "However, whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church the subjection is only on the part of the Church, in the relationship between husband and wife in the "subjection" is not one-sided but mutual."

Ephesus 5:25 says this:

"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her"

Furthermore Ephesus 5:24 says this:

"Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."


Clarification it doesn't make for men regarding women. You mentioned sacrifice, sacrificing oneself for the other is not submission. Loving the other is not submission. These are different concepts.

>>9371725

5:21 "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ."

This is mutual.

>>9371723
Because Samuel and Kings are compilations of legendary stories. What the 1 Samuel chapter actually says is the Amalekites were totally destroyed, the fact that the Amalekites turn up in a later story is a quirk of the fact that they are stories based on history, they are not objective historical fact.

>>9371733

But David fighting the Amalekites is way down the timeline of when the total destruction is said to have occurred. You don't think Samuel and Kings are chronological, as in the stories within don't take place in order?

>>9365865
You provided a few lines of Scripture with no context whatsoever. You also did not rebut or even mention the 2000 years of tradition interpreting this scripture. You have proven that you know nothing of Christianity other than what your YouTube athiests have told you.

>>9371744
Yes they do, but there are contradictions.

>>9371747

Well David fighting Amalekites after every Amalekite was destroyed would be a pretty glaring contradiction. Maybes it's a problem with your interpretive approach where you assume "total destruction" is a literal command instead of nonliteral "warfare rhetoric" or "epic narration." The inspired authors were not divine stenographers after all, these books were written by human hands for a human audience.

>>9371767

Many details in scripture that assume the total destruction of Israel's enemies did not actually take place. For example, in Joshua 11:22 it says "There was none of Anakim left in the land of the sons of Israel," but 4 chapters later Caleb is described as still driving the Anakim out of the land.

The book of Judges records Israel's conquest of Canaan, but it differs significantly from the account we find in the book of Joshua. Instead of recounting the utter destruction of the Canaanites, Judges only records the Israelite's destroying Canaanite idols--not the people as a whole. Judges even says, "When Israel grew strong, they put the Canaanites to forced labor, but did not utterly drive them out."

A simple way to resolve this apparent contradiction is to assume that passages describing the total destruction of the Canaanites are not literal, and because there are so many instances of this hyperbolic literary device being used I don't think it's off base.

>>9371767
>Well David fighting Amalekites after every Amalekite was destroyed would be a pretty glaring contradiction.
Yes, and there are many glaring contradictions within the scriptures. Some are reconcilable, some aren't.

>Maybes it's a problem with your interpretive approach where you assume "total destruction" is a literal command instead of nonliteral "warfare rhetoric" or "epic narration."
That's certainly possible. But I'd err on the side of saying that epic narratives were meant to be taken seriously and not just as hyperbole to the ancient readers. For modern readers, we obviously see the hyperbole and try to get at the real events behind it, but ancient readers weren't so bothered with that. In an Egyptian inscription, for example, where it says a pharaoh personally led an army and totally destroyed an enemy, it wasn't written so people would think "oh it's an exaggeration, he's just bigging himself up" it was written as a serious record. For an ancient reader, that's what happened, whether it contradicts something else or not.

I think you're combining the original meaning and intent of the writings with their historical factuality. One of the Samuel writers could well have meant the Amalekites were literally destroyed, and an author of Kings could have written something contradictory. It's totally possible they are real contradictions. Maybe they're not, but you're saying it HAS to be epic narrative because otherwise there's a contradiction with the historical facts, but I'm saying there's nothing stopping a contradiction being present because these are flawed writings of people.